What are the current plans for "Puff the magic dragon" and related aircraft? Are they still a great asset, or are they becoming long in the tooth. Are there plans to replace them with anything new?
I just love the idea: "How BIG of a gun can we get to fly?"

April 9th, 2004

MrPig

Topic: Re: A10 Vs. AH64?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sherman105

Just wondering, which do you prefer as close support for the ground troops and tanks...no problem to make this a CS aircraft- Fixed wings VS. Attack Helicopters....Like, this could go the same way for the Su25 Frogfoot and other CS jets.... So lets hear it...

I'm an A-10 driver, so I am biased, but here's my opinion for what it's worth.

The Army needs to learn from the Marine Corps some TT&P on how to employ their rotary wing assets and not get the crap shot out of them, as well as how to keep up with a highly mobile and fast moving ground component. I'll quote a major from my squadron who used to fly helos in the Army, "If you want to create screwed up tactics for a weapons system, give it to the Army."

Aside from that, you can't really compare helos and fixed wing that are employed in CAS. It's like apples and oranges. I will say the strengths of one platform cover the weaknesses of the other, and vice versa.

We don't do enough JAAT training in peacetime to effectively employ helos and fixed wing together when we go to war. It really is a shame, like I said, we can cover each others' six and really give the enemy hell.

More has to happen on the 'jointness' issue among higher pay grades than mine to make this type of training a reality. Reference the 'Operation Anaconda' mess when the Air Force was left out of the game plan until just a few hours before execution.

Bottom line, each type of platform has its place, and when used synergistically, 1 + 1 = 3.

April 9th, 2004

soilder79936

iwould prefer the AH64 or the A10 matter what ur gonna eliminate

--

April 9th, 2004

Mark Conley

here comes three cents worth..(1+1=3)

You cant compare em. Its like the other post said, each was made to fulfill a specific combat environment and task. The A-10 was originally designed to fill the Tank Killing task in eastern europe against the warsaw pact tank hordes. Its a low slow areial platform, capable of holding bombs, mavericks, and such, and getting it pilot back alive no matter how much of it was shot away ( I think one made it back shy of 1/3 of a wing, one engine, and 1/2 a tail and it made it back). A helicopter is good too for all the right reasons it was made: low slow get in get out and land anywhere. but it is like comparing apples and oranges.

Me personally? if its tanks i want dead, its an A-10. If its troops, or my hide out of a sling, its a helicopter.

As the dirty old man on Robocop said " Cant I have Both of you"?

April 9th, 2004

RnderSafe

Quote:

The Army needs to learn from the Marine Corps some TT&P on how to employ their rotary wing assets and not get the crap shot out of them, as well as how to keep up with a highly mobile and fast moving ground component. I'll quote a major from my squadron who used to fly helos in the Army, "If you want to create screwed up tactics for a weapons system, give it to the Army."

The USMC, has a dedicated WTI program for its aviators, which demands tough realistic training and applies sufficient dollars to the flying hour program to ensure that the pilots can meet the demands of the environments. You won't see this in the Army (see former post), except for TF 160. The unwillingness of higher eschelon types to recognize that the number of aircraft in the force structure has little to do with the outcome is the root cause of the problem; numbers of well trained crews to fly those aircraft will always be the long pole in the tent. Once the Army gets its head from its ass and starts putting in the time and dollars, the Apache will be an excellent asset.

April 10th, 2004

Jamoni

Yeah, if your people don't have their shit together, it doesn't matter what shit they have. That's a common failing in our techno-centric society. We think that the guy with the best gear will win, but not if he can't use it. You give a green private an m16, and an old vet a bolt action .22, and let's see who comes out alive.

April 12th, 2004

gjc

An interesting exchange of views from people who have expereince with both airframes. As our MOD has just spent a small fortune on AH-64D (but have cut just enough corners that they don't seem to work properly)it is interesting to hear about the lack of funding for realistic training in demanding environments. It was intersting to see that of the 24 AH-64's deployed by the US from Germany to the Kosovo campaqin, none saw action but two were lost in orientation flights in the mountainous terrain on the Albanian/Kosovan border, around 8% of the delpoyed combat power. No weapons system is better than the human soldier who has to use it.

Incidently, the sour joke in the British Army is that if you see any plane in the sky take cover. The RAF is so small (and their pilots too busy drinking gin in their air conditioned hotels) that it won't be them, so it is either US or enemy, in which case the result is usually the same - we get bombed. Thereforethe SOP is to take over! Just a cultural observation - not meant as a personal insult to anyone who flies USAF.

April 12th, 2004

SHERMAN

Topic: lol

lol at that.But the RAF pilots are good. I think the AH64 is a great bird. We got Yassin with one....

April 24th, 2004

No MERCY

Topic: tuff

They are both well equipped fighting machines withthe best pilots. But the A10 could do a lot more damage than a helocopter.

May 2nd, 2004

silent driller

A-10 all the way. It is the baddest SOB in the valley and it will definitely kick someone's ass